The key issue before the justices is under what circumstances people can sue the federal government in an effort to hold law enforcement accountable. Martin’s attorneys say Congress clearly allowed for those lawsuits in 1974, after a pair of law enforcement raids on wrong houses made headlines, and blocking them would leave little recourse for families like her.
FBI Atlanta spokesperson Tony Thomas said in an email the agency can’t comment on pending litigation. But lawyers for the government argued in Martin’s case that courts shouldn’t be “second-guessing” law enforcement decisions. The FBI agents did advance work and tried to find the right house, making this raid fundamentally different from the no-knock, warrantless raids that led Congress to act in the 1970s, the Justice Department said in court filings starting under the Biden administration.
Can we require malpractice insurance for cops yet?
But lawyers for the government argued in Martin’s case that courts shouldn’t be “second-guessing” law enforcement decisions.
Bullshit. That should be a prime job of SCOTUS … holding power to account.
And as always, ACAB.
Not trying to argue against that. However a certain, REASONABLE, degree of room for decisions should absolutely be out of reach of courts. Otherwise you’ll stall the executive branch on doing anything, from raiding peoples homes to assigning stands on a public fair.
Naturally the more invasive to constitutional rights the narrower that room should be and the stricter they need to be held accountable.
That being said, the USA is so far from being tightly regulated that this is even anywhere near that situation where the executive is crippled by accountability. If anything there are too few rules and to little accountability
When the government is invading peoples’ homes, ENORMOUSLY increasing the chances of death for all participants, there is absolutely NO room for mistakes. They need to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time. And when they aren’t, they need to be held accountable. No excuses are acceptable.
Inherent to the term “second-guessing” is that the action has already taken place and thus no one is stalled.
Lmao the only reason there is second guessing is because there was first guessing. Guessing should not be an option in this scenario at all.
Second breakfast is much more enjoyable than second guessing tho.
The agent who led the raid said his personal GPS led him to the wrong place.
Easy-peasy: add the GPS maker to the lawsuit and SCOTUS will know what to do to protect the job creator.
Same thing the guy who delivers my pizza says when he’s taking my food to someone halfway down the block.
